LA Times - High Desert Highway

[Plutonic Panda]

It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.

[sparker]

It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.

Sunset was always considered a "superarterial"; the roads flanking it are streets corresponding to the standard Sunset District grid pattern rather than actual "frontage" facilities; the purpose of the road was simply to connect the city park facilities -- GG park on the north and Lake Merced, the city zoo, and the city-owned golf facilities on the south -- while keeping traffic between those places out of residential streets.  Apparently the Division of Highways eyed it back in the late '50's as a way to get I-280 through the city without the expense or hassle of property acquisition (despite the prospect of a very convoluted connection to the present I-280 alignment south of the city) -- but, of course, the "freeway revolt" of the mid-60's rendered such plans moot.

Even though the area where the High Desert Highway would be built seems desolate or sparsely populated quite a bit of private property, homes, businesses, etc are in the path. Those types of obstacles are the main reason why so many new highways are built so damn crooked. Even a lot of older Interstates on seemingly pancake-flat land, such as I-70 in Kansas, were forced to make lots of up and down dips to save money on grading costs. That specific road has plenty of bends in it where the alignment had to be adjusted to avoid land that couldn't be acquired for a more direct route. In this particular case any successful hold-outs blocking ROW acquisition could literally derail the whole endeavor. A 200mph HSR route can't be built all bend-o-matic style like I-69 in Southern Indiana.

Aside from possible court battles on ROW acquisition, I also wonder if a business as usual type of inertia would force a new freeway aspiring to hold a future high speed rail line to get built to the same old usual standards. The much higher standards for grading and curves would likely raise the road construction cost dramatically.

I was wondering about that myself regarding the High Desert corridor; back in 2012, before I pulled up stakes and moved north, I actually drove along the proposed alignment from Adelanto west to Palmdale to see what the corridor might encounter along its path.  The answer was -- except for the first couple of miles west of US 395 and the last few miles in Palmdale -- pretty much nothing.  It could easily avoid Lake Los Angeles, the only concentration of housing in between the more urbanized areas to the east and west -- in fact, it would have to swerve well off the projected trajectory to create any problems there.  I counted about 15-20 structures that may have to be razed in the 40 miles covered; most of those were outbuildings rather than actual residences.  Also, any curvature for topological reasons would be exceptionally mild and well within HSR parameters; this applies to vertical gradient as well.  The path was chosen well -- it snakes between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" at its western end -- through a swath of open and unimproved land acting as a "buffer".     

Bottom line -- it's "doable" as a potential HSR corridor, even if only initially graded for such; there's enough available ROW, width-wise, to construct a toll road and leave room in the median for any rail technology available today.

[TheStranger]

It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.

Sunset was always considered a "superarterial"; the roads flanking it are streets corresponding to the standard Sunset District grid pattern rather than actual "frontage" facilities; the purpose of the road was simply to connect the city park facilities -- GG park on the north and Lake Merced, the city zoo, and the city-owned golf facilities on the south -- while keeping traffic between those places out of residential streets.  Apparently the Division of Highways eyed it back in the late '50's as a way to get I-280 through the city without the expense or hassle of property acquisition (despite the prospect of a very convoluted connection to the present I-280 alignment south of the city) -- but, of course, the "freeway revolt" of the mid-60's rendered such plans moot.

Do you have any maps or info on those plans to route 280 along Sunset?  That's always intrigued me because of the existing half-cloverleaf with Sloat (and the half-diamond with Lincoln way) and the general layout of Sunset being interesting for fictional-highway exercises in my head.  I feel like as much as trying to connect to the existing Junipero Serra Freeway stub that is Route 1 would have been a little challenging, this also predates the Parkmerced development doesn't it?  So the area around Font Boulevard would have been a lot less developed back then.   If anything, the same thing that ailed the I-80 extension and the Serra north extension into SF remained as always: how poorly any proposed interchange and freeway construction within Golden Gate Park was received.

[sparker]

It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.

Sunset was always considered a "superarterial"; the roads flanking it are streets corresponding to the standard Sunset District grid pattern rather than actual "frontage" facilities; the purpose of the road was simply to connect the city park facilities -- GG park on the north and Lake Merced, the city zoo, and the city-owned golf facilities on the south -- while keeping traffic between those places out of residential streets.  Apparently the Division of Highways eyed it back in the late '50's as a way to get I-280 through the city without the expense or hassle of property acquisition (despite the prospect of a very convoluted connection to the present I-280 alignment south of the city) -- but, of course, the "freeway revolt" of the mid-60's rendered such plans moot.

Do you have any maps or info on those plans to route 280 along Sunset?  That's always intrigued me because of the existing half-cloverleaf with Sloat (and the half-diamond with Lincoln way) and the general layout of Sunset being interesting for fictional-highway exercises in my head.  I feel like as much as trying to connect to the existing Junipero Serra Freeway stub that is Route 1 would have been a little challenging, this also predates the Parkmerced development doesn't it?  So the area around Font Boulevard would have been a lot less developed back then.   If anything, the same thing that ailed the I-80 extension and the Serra north extension into SF remained as always: how poorly any proposed interchange and freeway construction within Golden Gate Park was received.

I certainly wouldn't stake my life on this, but from what I read from SF news sources -- while doing research on something else back in the mid-70's at the S.F. main library -- was that, IIRC, connection plans would have involved cut-and-cover construction up Junipero Serra to Sloat, then west along that artery (a state highway west of 19th Avenue) to Sunset; besides the issue of ventilation, this would have required a couple of relatively sharp curves, particularly at Serra, where it would have to pass under the trolley line.  Never saw any proposals for the similar "lateral" alignment within GG Park or anything beyond that except that anything north of the park would have been an "upgrade" of Park Presidio, for much the same reasons as those involving Sunset Blvd. (avoidance of private property taking).  But in the end, the idea of disturbing the park at all for a freeway was the real final nail in the coffin of S.F. freeway expansion.

To me, the whole process is an exposition of the mindset of the pre-Caltrans Division of Highways planners -- that by avoiding taking of private property by keeping the alignment on publicly owned lands as much as possible, the whole concept would have been rendered doable in their estimation.  Apparently some in the Division thought the issue of urban freeways revolved more around disapproval of the use of eminent domain for private property taking than any broader sociopolitical or socioeconomic issues -- they likely thought of themselves simply as engineers just trying to do a job rather than invaders of urban space.   But although they were disabused of that self-image as far as S.F. went, the D4 planners simply picked up their funding, got it transferred 45 miles south, and applied it to I-280 and I-680 through the central part of San Jose.   That's something that might have been done 50+ years ago, but would certainly at least raise objections if not massive opposition these days. 

BTW, the Park Merced development occurred about the same time as Park LaBrea in Los Angeles (same developers) -- in the mid-50's, right about the time of the Interstate inception.  It would have been in the way of any direct connection between the J. Serra portion of I-280 south of the city line and any Sunset Blvd.-based alignment well before such was considered.               

[Bobby5280]

It'd sure be nice to see tolled underpasses on Sunset BLVD(SF) in certain areas.

Is there anywhere in the US where someone driving on a surface street is going to run into a toll gate on a mere urban surface street? The concept sounds like it could have very nasty, unintended consequences: namely unexpected traffic snarls and grid-lock. Any motorist not totally familiar with that neighborhood may panic and literally park in the middle of the street when suddenly faced with a toll gate blocking his way. I don't put it past any motorist from literally trying to do a 180° turn in the middle of the street to go back the other direction if he's on a 2-way street.

We're used to super highways having toll gates across the main lanes and at the limited access entrances and exits. They're closed facilities and plenty of drivers shun-pike those facilities. Toll tag readers on surface streets is a whole different ball game. It wouldn't be nearly as neat or easy to post signs warning drivers of the tolls ahead. There's zero doubt any act to erect toll gates on regular streets would be met with very angry reactions from local voters.

New York is looking at putting up $11 tolls for anyone to drive into Lower Manhattan. But that island already has several of its access points (especially everything from New Jersey) costing tolls. The only free acess into Manhattan is from Long Island and the Bronx. Plus, as much as costs to just park in Manhattan that discourages lots of personal vehicle use. It's just too bad the MTA's subway system is badly dilapidated and that it costs a ka-jillion damned dollars to fix even the tiniest bit of the system. I'm glad I do not live there anymore.

I was wondering about that myself regarding the High Desert corridor; back in 2012, before I pulled up stakes and moved north, I actually drove along the proposed alignment from Adelanto west to Palmdale to see what the corridor might encounter along its path.  The answer was -- except for the first couple of miles west of US 395 and the last few miles in Palmdale -- pretty much nothing.  It could easily avoid Lake Los Angeles, the only concentration of housing in between the more urbanized areas to the east and west -- in fact, it would have to swerve well off the projected trajectory to create any problems there.  I counted about 15-20 structures that may have to be razed in the 40 miles covered; most of those were outbuildings rather than actual residences.  Also, any curvature for topological reasons would be exceptionally mild and well within HSR parameters; this applies to vertical gradient as well.  The path was chosen well -- it snakes between central Palmdale and the old Lockheed "skunk works" at its western end -- through a swath of open and unimproved land acting as a "buffer".     

Bottom line -- it's "doable" as a potential HSR corridor, even if only initially graded for such; there's enough available ROW, width-wise, to construct a toll road and leave room in the median for any rail technology available today.

There are indeed gaps of what appear to be undeveloped desert land between Adelanto, Lake Los Angeles and Palmdale. But once the route gets into the vicinity of those towns there are tracts of homes and agricultural property. The Palmdale and Lancaster areas are growing together. I think it will be a miracle if they can build this new freeway along Palmdale Blvd and Ave Q to CA-14 (what looks like the preferred alternative). There is a lot of property along that path. Outside of Palmdale the Antelope Center neighborhood stands as another obstacle. I think it's still very do-able to thread a new freeway through that area. But a freeway carrying cars can bend a whole lot more easily than a high speed rail line. The train's top speeds would have to be greatly limited if there are any serious bends in its route.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ Toll gated are ancient technology! No way I would suggest that. I'm suggesting tag readers. It's the same thing if someone enters a toll road. It can either use a transponder or utilize plate pay. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it. It would give people a faster option to move throughout the city. I never paid attention if there is bus service along this corridor but if there is bus service would be improved as well.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Once into the Palmdale area, any prospects for HSR would depend upon precisely whose HSR service was to be deployed along the High Desert corridor.  If it were an extension of the Vegas line, it would be terminating in Palmdale in any case, so it would have had to start slowing down some 5-10 miles east of CA 14 -- or, more likely, the plotted location of the now-indefinitely-delayed N-S statewide HSR project, at which point it would have to depart the roadway corridor's ROW.  Alternately, if it were to turn onto that corridor toward L.A. (sharing trackage with the state's HSR), it would need to slow down for that segment, which was to be the slower-speed portion of the route essentially an onsite upgrade of the Metrolink facility (the Burbank-Palmdale tunnel concept notwithstanding; with the rollback of the main corridor, that's definitely in limbo for the time being).  In any case, the service would need to slow to more or less conventional speeds approaching Palmdale, so having to negotiate a bit more curvature than can be handled at 200+ mph wouldn't be a significant issue.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ I would like to just see conventional train service return to Vegas at this point with some track upgrades to allow for at least 110 MPH in areas where possible.

[TheStranger]

  But although they were disabused of that self-image as far as S.F. went, the D4 planners simply picked up their funding, got it transferred 45 miles south, and applied it to I-280 and I-680 through the central part of San Jose.   That's something that might have been done 50+ years ago, but would certainly at least raise objections if not massive opposition these days. 

That actually makes it in some ways more amazing that Route 87 was built out entirely in the post-freeway revolt era, right on the edge of Downtown San Jose next to the Guadalupe River.   

I do remember on Eric Fischer's Flickr page a 1950s planning map showing a freeway on the 280/Junipero Serra corridor in the south bay, but instead of going to downtown SJ as is the case now, following today's 85 south to the current southern 85/101 junction.

The Century Freeway/I-105 is pretty well known for a lot of the eminent domain required to get it built; was that also true for other post-1960s projects like the 210 extension and the newer freeways in San Diego like 52/54/56?

[Bobby5280]

Toll gated are ancient technology! No way I would suggest that. I'm suggesting tag readers. It's the same thing if someone enters a toll road. It can either use a transponder or utilize plate pay. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it. It would give people a faster option to move throughout the city. I never paid attention if there is bus service along this corridor but if there is bus service would be improved as well.

I used "toll gate" as a general term. I did mention toll tags (implying RFID tech) in my previous post. Why would anyone be opposed to it? Probably for some of the same reasons why lots of people hate toll roads. With erecting toll tag and license plate readers on existing streets people will feel like they're being charged to drive on something their taxes have already paid for to build and maintain. A class warfare element is likely to broil up in it. People rich enough to shrug off the cost of the tolls will keep driving while everyone else who is squeezed will be forced to take mass transit. Taking mass transit is NOT the rosy experience all the New Urbanists sell it as being.

[Plutonic Panda]

Toll gated are ancient technology! No way I would suggest that. I'm suggesting tag readers. It's the same thing if someone enters a toll road. It can either use a transponder or utilize plate pay. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it. It would give people a faster option to move throughout the city. I never paid attention if there is bus service along this corridor but if there is bus service would be improved as well.

I used "toll gate" as a general term. I did mention toll tags (implying RFID tech) in my previous post. Why would anyone be opposed to it? Probably for some of the same reasons why lots of people hate toll roads. With erecting toll tag and license plate readers on existing streets people will feel like they're being charged to drive on something their taxes have already paid for to build and maintain. A class warfare element is likely to broil up in it. People rich enough to shrug off the cost of the tolls will keep driving while everyone else who is squeezed will be forced to take mass transit. Taking mass transit is NOT the rosy experience all the New Urbanists sell it as being.

The mass transit thing would just be a tool in the shed to help garner support and there would still be a free option but it would take longer. If it were up to me, I'd have the over/underpasses free, but I don't think it would work.

[sparker]

That actually makes it in some ways more amazing that Route 87 was built out entirely in the post-freeway revolt era, right on the edge of Downtown San Jose next to the Guadalupe River.

87 was a special case; from the '60's forward to recent years, the city of San Jose by and large was looking to enhance their downtown area and wanted to provide access to the greatest number of inbound folks regardless of mode of transport.  There was an downtown easement provided for the freeway; north from there it had always been assumed that the alignment would subsume the Guadalupe Parkway that had been developed in the '60's.  The alignment to the south had been adopted in the early '60's as well; the 87/280 interchange near downtown was fully built (with stub-ends in both directions) as part of the original I-280 construction in the late '60's and early '70's.  Up until the late '80's the city government wanted it, Caltrans wanted to get cracking on it back then, and the downtown businesses definitely wanted 87 built and supplying potential customers.  But the transit/LR push in the late '80's that culminated in the first phase of VTA LR being built up and down First Street signaled a major policy shift within the city; if it were not for the alteration of CA 87 plans south of downtown -- along with several miles of CA 85 to the southeast -- placing the LR line in the freeway median, the whole thing might well not have been fully built.  The northern part was "sold" to city planners as the only way to expedite traffic to and from the airport to downtown.  In the meantime, the Guadalupe River, adjacent to the northern half of the CA 87 corridor, was declared a riparian reserve -- so the north half of CA 87 required a redesign to preserve river space, which flanks the ROW along its west side.  Also, the management of Mineta Airport argued against an 87/880 interchange, which sat at the corner of the airport only a quarter-mile away from one of the main runways; any flyovers were considered to pose potential interference issues with airport operations.  Although this omission meant a lack of a direct downtown SJ-to-Oakland connection, the interchange was erased from the freeway's plans.  But although some planners wished to omit the freeway south of I-280 and simply run the LR line down the ROW, it was the design of the whole thing that combined LR terminals with the various overpasses and undercrossings along the freeway that saved the project; dropping the freeway would have entailed a complete LR redesign -- and a corresponding delay of several years.  Still, most of the downtown businessmen, the chamber of commerce, and D4 itself maintained an unflagging resolve to get CA 87 built despite increasing opposition from some quarters.       

[TheStranger]

That actually makes it in some ways more amazing that Route 87 was built out entirely in the post-freeway revolt era, right on the edge of Downtown San Jose next to the Guadalupe River.

87 was a special case; from the '60's forward to recent years, the city of San Jose by and large was looking to enhance their downtown area and wanted to provide access to the greatest number of inbound folks regardless of mode of transport.  There was an downtown easement provided for the freeway; north from there it had always been assumed that the alignment would subsume the Guadalupe Parkway that had been developed in the '60's.  The alignment to the south had been adopted in the early '60's as well; the 87/280 interchange near downtown was fully built (with stub-ends in both directions) as part of the original I-280 construction in the late '60's and early '70's.  Up until the late '80's the city government wanted it, Caltrans wanted to get cracking on it back then, and the downtown businesses definitely wanted 87 built and supplying potential customers.  But the transit/LR push in the late '80's that culminated in the first phase of VTA LR being built up and down First Street signaled a major policy shift within the city; if it were not for the alteration of CA 87 plans south of downtown -- along with several miles of CA 85 to the southeast -- placing the LR line in the freeway median, the whole thing might well not have been fully built.  The northern part was "sold" to city planners as the only way to expedite traffic to and from the airport to downtown.  In the meantime, the Guadalupe River, adjacent to the northern half of the CA 87 corridor, was declared a riparian reserve -- so the north half of CA 87 required a redesign to preserve river space, which flanks the ROW along its west side.  Also, the management of Mineta Airport argued against an 87/880 interchange, which sat at the corner of the airport only a quarter-mile away from one of the main runways; any flyovers were considered to pose potential interference issues with airport operations.  Although this omission meant a lack of a direct downtown SJ-to-Oakland connection, the interchange was erased from the freeway's plans.  But although some planners wished to omit the freeway south of I-280 and simply run the LR line down the ROW, it was the design of the whole thing that combined LR terminals with the various overpasses and undercrossings along the freeway that saved the project; dropping the freeway would have entailed a complete LR redesign -- and a corresponding delay of several years.  Still, most of the downtown businessmen, the chamber of commerce, and D4 itself maintained an unflagging resolve to get CA 87 built despite increasing opposition from some quarters.       

Thanks for the writeup!

This kinda begs 2 questions:

1. Was 87 between 101 and 237 ever seriously considered?  (The part north of 237 and into the bay of course being eliminated in the 1970s)  There are times I wonder if a connector from 880 to 87 in that area north of 101 would have been a good substitute for building a direct 87/880 interchange, but with land values and development I don't think that is realistic.

2. Are 85 and 87 the last two major new-alignment freeway/expressway projects so far in District 4?  I'm not even sure what the status of the (relatively short) Route 84 realignment project in Fremont is at this point (and Route 84 on Bayfront Expressway in Menlo Park was more of a signage deal, taking it off Willow Road/Route 114 to the already built but originally unsigned expressway).

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
A northward 87 extension to the CA 237 freeway may have been considered in the '80's or '90's (I wasn't living in the area after 1987 so I likely missed anything in the local press to that effect -- and haven't heard of any official interest), but the shift of priorities to LR -- specifically the E-W VTA line down Tasman that effectively bisects the area between US 101 and 237 -- coupled with the vast increase of property values in that area courtesy of Oracle, Cisco, and other major tech players occupying huge tracts of land -- have effectively shut down any further consideration of such an extension.  About the only place left to place such a facility would be right down the Guadalupe River; and that portion of the waterway is a designated riparian and waterfowl refuge -- so it's out of the picture.  And to respond to the possibility of shunting 87 back to 880 -- if anything, that section is more densely developed than the original NW trajectory of the 87 freeway (one of my audio-business colleagues has an office on Charcot a couple of blocks west of 880 -- and it's like a forest there).  Unless laid directly over Trimble Road and/or Montague Expressway, there's not a chance in hell that such a pathway would ever see the light of day.

Regarding any future D4 projects:  except for improvements underway at Cordelia Junction (12/80/680) and any potential extensions of CA 4 in the Brentwood area (which include the long-considered CA 239 from CA 4 down to the 580/205 split), it's likely improvements will be either "spot" in nature (interchange revamp here, widening there, etc.) or related to recovering from the latest & greatest disaster (like the washout of CA 37 east of Novato).  Except for those areas mentioned above, don't expect any significant additions to the freeway network in this area.

P.S. -- although the ROW for the Fremont 84 realignment remains intact (meaning unsold/undeveloped), I haven't heard of any plans to revive the project -- even though much of existing surface CA 84 in Fremont is slated for relinquishment. 

[skluth]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Another reason why San Jose wasn't hit by the freeway revolts c 1970 was the demographic character of the city. The freeway revolts were usually in majority non-white cities where suburbanites wanted the convenience of getting downtown on freeways. The people were rarely fully compensated for their home losses. In 1970, San Jose was over 75% white non-Hispanic and "only" about 450,000 people total. Most of the revolts were in African-American neighborhoods, usually poor. San Jose even today is less than 5% African-American. There was no freeway revolt because most of these people wanted the freeway. They may not have been happy about losing their property, but by the time CA 87 was being completed the compensation was more fair than during the 1960s when the freeway revolts began.

Food for thought: this was the price for the Century Freeway (I-105) in LA.

"It has been estimated that 9,000 families, including 21,000 individuals, will be displaced by the freeway. A significant percentage are non-white and an even larger number have relatively low incomes. Approximately 3,900 single-family dwellings and 3,000 multiple-unit dwellings, including some 118 units of public housing, will be acquired and demolished for the freeway right-of-way." (Ecology Law Quarterly, September 1972, Litigating the Freeway Revolt: Keith v. Volpe by Kathleen Armstrong)

Compensation became much more fair after the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, Uniform Act), which covered all Federal agencies involved in right-of-way acquisition. I would guess not too many properties were needed for San Jose's freeways. It's this compensation which makes building any highway through a dense urban fabric so expensive. It probably would be cheaper just to tunnel a new highway through a metro area these days.

[TheStranger]

^^^^^^^^^^^

Another reason why San Jose wasn't hit by the freeway revolts c 1970 was the demographic character of the city. The freeway revolts were usually in majority non-white cities where suburbanites wanted the convenience of getting downtown on freeways. The people were rarely fully compensated for their home losses. In 1970, San Jose was over 75% white non-Hispanic and "only" about 450,000 people total. Most of the revolts were in African-American neighborhoods, usually poor. San Jose even today is less than 5% African-American. There was no freeway revolt because most of these people wanted the freeway. They may not have been happy about losing their property, but by the time CA 87 was being completed the compensation was more fair than during the 1960s when the freeway revolts began.

While I have learned over the last year or so that the construction of the San Francisco segment of the Bayshore Freeway spurred on anti-road sentiment in the city (as it split Bayview from Bernal Heights, also doing the same for the Mission and Potrero Hill neighborhoods), I recall that the proposed Western Freeway (I-80 extension from the 1989-2005 west extent of the Central Freeway to Golden Gate Park) created the most vocal opposition.

Compensation became much more fair after the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646, Uniform Act), which covered all Federal agencies involved in right-of-way acquisition. I would guess not too many properties were needed for San Jose's freeways. It's this compensation which makes building any highway through a dense urban fabric so expensive. It probably would be cheaper just to tunnel a new highway through a metro area these days.

IIRC Route 85 south of I-280 had its right of way preserved even after the 1976 CalTrans cuts occurred.  About the only major change from what was proposed back then was when the county's plan to convert the local expressways (Lawrence, San Tomas, et al.) to full freeways ended up not happening.

[pderocco]

There are indeed gaps of what appear to be undeveloped desert land between Adelanto, Lake Los Angeles and Palmdale. But once the route gets into the vicinity of those towns there are tracts of homes and agricultural property. The Palmdale and Lancaster areas are growing together. I think it will be a miracle if they can build this new freeway along Palmdale Blvd and Ave Q to CA-14 (what looks like the preferred alternative). There is a lot of property along that path. Outside of Palmdale the Antelope Center neighborhood stands as another obstacle. I think it's still very do-able to thread a new freeway through that area. But a freeway carrying cars can bend a whole lot more easily than a high speed rail line. The train's top speeds would have to be greatly limited if there are any serious bends in its route.

The drawings I've seen show it along P-8, a mile north of Palmdale Blvd. Check out some of the PDFs here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d7/projects/HDC/. Looks feasible to me.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
The project scoping diagram, particularly the one showing where interchanges would be located, is intriguing inasmuch as it shows some interesting ancillary components to the basic E-W corridor, including a potential interchange with a US 395 bypass freeway considerably west of the present highway alignment -- since most plans I've seen (very far off in the future) for a US 395 freeway in the area show it essentially adjacent to the present highway rather than outflung some 4-5 miles to the west -- ostensibly to circumvent Adelanto housing development; the reserved tracts adjacent to US 395 in the already developed area could thus be repurposed for commercial usage.  A couple of other items stand out:  a potential Palmdale-bypassing freeway or expressway connector south from the HDC ROW more or less along East 130th Street in L.A. County; my guess is that this would be a CA 138 rerouting away from the present surface route to serve as a Palmdale bypass.  And finally -- and this is something that got a lot of press back around 2011-12 when the corridor concept was garnering local attention -- the freeway segment is extending east from I-15 to at least the Dale Evans Parkway -- the original 2010-11 plans called for the freeway segment to segue into an expressway with surface intersections immediately east of I-15 with at-grade crossings thereafter.  But it looks like at least 2 interchanges are planned, the last being the aforementioned Dale Evans Parkway -- which is the location of Wal Mart's major SoCal distribution center (the rather massive facility can be seen on the HDC overhead view, about a mile north of the HDC's CA 18 extension alignment around the north side of Apple Valley).  Looks like the folks from Bentonville put in their two (or 2 billion) cents' worth and got an interchange rather than a simple intersection.  I attended a "town hall" meeting in Hesperia in late 2011 when Caltrans representatives from D7 & D8 held a public forum about HDC plans; pretty much all the locals favored the Apple Valley bypass -- but some were adamant that it should have been planned as a full freeway from the start.  The engineers demurred, citing traffic volumes along CA 18 in Apple Valley and how those didn't warrant a full freeway -- and that a controlled-access expressway would be sufficient.  But it sure looks like some Arkansas interlopers were able to at least partially change their minds over a period of a few years! I for one am keeping my eye on this project -- and not just because one of the Adelanto-area options looks like it runs next door to a close friend's home in northwest Victorville! 

I'm wondering if artists' renderings of some of the interchanges and potential other facilities along the corridor have been drawn as of yet; it'd be nice to get some visual notion of what's planned for the project.     
 

[ClassicHasClass]

Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)

[sparker]

Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)

This was discussed a few weeks back; someone googled up a CA 122 shield on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138.  The fact that the projected (but never formally adopted) path of CA 122 follows much of that road apparently underlies someone's wishful thinking -- but as Caltrans is busy shedding surface roads -- particularly within D7 -- the chances of them actually adopting the existing roadway are miniscule.   

[ClassicHasClass]

Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)

This was discussed a few weeks back; someone googled up a CA 122 shield on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138.  The fact that the projected (but never formally adopted) path of CA 122 follows much of that road apparently underlies someone's wishful thinking -- but as Caltrans is busy shedding surface roads -- particularly within D7 -- the chances of them actually adopting the existing roadway are miniscule.   

I'm up that way a lot, and I don't remember seeing any such shield there, but I'll keep an eye out. Usually I'm going northbound from CA 14 to CA 138 so maybe it's in the other direction. The post you mention doesn't seem to be coming up in the search results unless I'm doing it wrong.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just noticed, on the Caltrans interactive map, that the long-gestating CA 122 is actually "signed" according to Google Maps. (It's not, but it's interesting to see it there.)

This was discussed a few weeks back; someone googled up a CA 122 shield on Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138.  The fact that the projected (but never formally adopted) path of CA 122 follows much of that road apparently underlies someone's wishful thinking -- but as Caltrans is busy shedding surface roads -- particularly within D7 -- the chances of them actually adopting the existing roadway are miniscule.   

I'm up that way a lot, and I don't remember seeing any such shield there, but I'll keep an eye out. Usually I'm going northbound from CA 14 to CA 138 so maybe it's in the other direction. The post you mention doesn't seem to be coming up in the search results unless I'm doing it wrong.

Its simply a map error by Google.  CA 122 shows up on this map image of Palmdale:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.5808254,-118.2284672,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613?hl=en

Conversely CA 179 shows up near Vacaville which like CA 122 was never actually built:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vacaville,+CA/@38.3630307,-122.0347425,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808517cf9f7df407:0xe4aac8df639b631c!8m2!3d38.3565773!4d-121.9877444?hl=en

[sparker]

Its simply a map error by Google.  CA 122 shows up on this map image of Palmdale:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palmdale,+CA/@34.5808254,-118.2284672,11z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c25784ec70ddb5:0x6a6c792dad12e03a!8m2!3d34.5794343!4d-118.1164613?hl=en

Conversely CA 179 shows up near Vacaville which like CA 122 was never actually built:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Vacaville,+CA/@38.3630307,-122.0347425,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x808517cf9f7df407:0xe4aac8df639b631c!8m2!3d38.3565773!4d-121.9877444?hl=en

Two Google map errors of the same variety -- guess that happens more often than one would hope due to open-source input.  Obviously, someone with access to an official Caltrans map -- which shows these routes as a series of dots -- is simply projecting his or her wishes into the process.  Actually, a completed CA 122 would be pretty valuable as a "shortcut" from the western reaches of L.A. metro to both I-15 and I-40 -- but for now, the HDC looks like it'll take regional precedence over any action regarding 122 -- which, if it hasn't even undergone adoption proceedings after 60 years of existence is unlikely to be any more than a line on the map for the foreseeable future.